AuthorTopic: Some fish farm reading. (Read 7105 times)

Moving the goal posts yet again? This isn't at all the claim you made about expansion that elicited my response to you.

If another player wanted in the market all those siting criteria would still apply and so would the requirement for unsupplied market demand to absorb the production and the requirement to go through the rigorous approval process to establish new sites. It may work for your argument to ignore world supply conditions but it isn't accurate or honest. Those specific criteria are to ensure the health of the farm stocks and the shared use of coastal waters, not to minimize damage to the environment.

How am I moving the goal post? How is this NOT the claim I made? My claim is that if the industry expands, as demand for salmon is not going down (according to fish farmers themselves who cite the world demand as their reason d'etre), then the foot print is going to be larger than Stanley Park. It is only as small as it is today because the industry was not allowed to expand geographically under the moratorium (so they expanded the individual operations capacity instead). Clearly, an "unsupplied market" is not necessary to preclude expansion as the initial expansion of salmon farms drove down the price of salmon, indicating their was a surplus of salmon created by the expansion of salmon farming.

I would also be concerned about those that bypass regulations or any assessment on purpose. In this day and age, this is done quite often by average Joe Public. They get the old Bobcat in there doing work without any approval at all.

Exactly. While Absolon would have you believe that being concerned about one means you must not or cannot be concerned about the others, I myself do not feel that way. I can be as equally concerned about a new hydro electric project on a summer steelhead stream as I am about the prospect of a plethora of open net salmon farms on key wild salmon migration routes. I have never claimed, as Absolon would have you believe, that salmon farms are the devil and the one and only reason wild salmon are in decline. I have only ever indicated that the scientific research I have read about the negative effects of open net salmon farming has lead me to conclude that the benefits of the farms to the economy is not worth the risks to the environment. Furthermore, while I appreciate that there are all sorts of government bureaucrats in charge of ensuring the safety of our environment, you will forgive me, in light of the most recent revelations about those government safety nets, if I am less than confident that they have the best interest of the wild salmon, or the environment in general, in mind.

There is no harm in that right? Either they are not harming the environment and therefore can expand all over the coast, or they are harming the environment and therefore should be removed (although you may argue that they cannot be removed for economic reasons).

Actually I should have used this quote also...

Essentially, all development that is carried out "impacts" the environment in one way or another so I am not sure where you are coming from. If harm is to be shown (any harm whatsoever) by any industry or development does this mean that it should be removed? You realize what this would include and the impact it would have? There is scientific research on many impacts to the environment - not just aquaculture....Where does one start? I mean let Google be the gateway to many reports. A person can be up all night downloading reports. Kemano comes to mind....even the Bridge River where most of that watershed is now a huge reservoir. That's why I made that little list...which could be added onto quite extensively. I will agree that following the last federal budget that habitat issues seem to be on the radar, but I do not think that it will necessarily mean that fish farms will be popping up all over the place with no assessment or consideration (as Aquapaloosa and Absolon have already stated).

How am I moving the goal post? How is this NOT the claim I made? My claim is that if the industry expands, as demand for salmon is not going down (according to fish farmers themselves who cite the world demand as their reason d'etre), then the foot print is going to be larger than Stanley Park. It is only as small as it is today because the industry was not allowed to expand geographically under the moratorium (so they expanded the individual operations capacity instead). Clearly, an "unsupplied market" is not necessary to preclude expansion as the initial expansion of salmon farms drove down the price of salmon, indicating their was a surplus of salmon created by the expansion of salmon farming.

No, this is your original claim:

Quote

What is stopping the expansion of the farms? If the "antis" as you like to call us, all go away and stop bothering your employers, then what is to stop the expansion of the salmon farms into every cove on the BC coast? It is free enterprise, right? If Mainstream can farm here, why can I not open a farm in the next inlet? or across the inlet? There is no harm in that right? Either they are not harming the environment and therefore can expand all over the coast, or they are harming the environment and therefore should be removed

As I pointed out, there are considerable physical and biological limitations on where the farms can expand as well as substantial economic restrictions on that expansion not to mention further regulatory restrictions. Contrary to your suggestion, it is not nor will it become "open season". Assuming they haven't slipped your mind, you might refer back to several links that Chris has posted about the current supply situation in the salmon market as well as do a little research yourself on trends in Chilean and Norwegian production versus world demand.

You might also bear in mind that contrary to your suggestion to Steve, I've said nothing that would indicate that a person cannot be concerned about "the others" if that person if that person is concerned about "one". The closest I've come to that is to suggest that a person who is concerned about "one" should ensure that the reasons for their concern are real and not manufactured to support a preordained position.